BP Chats

Any concern about Felix's elbow? Should I be concerned about him in fantasy this year?(Brian from Madison)

Hey Brian, I don't know that I have a specific concern about Felix other than his significant workload. The last three pitchers to log 1,600 innings by age 26 were Dwight Gooden, Fernando Valenzuela, and Frank Tanana. Those guys went on to have great careers, although not as great as people might have expected based on their earlier success. On the bright side, Bert Blyleven was the last before them (he had thrown 500 more innings than Felix by this point), and he ended up in the Hall of Fame. You never know with pitchers, but so far it seems like he's up to the task. (Geoff Young)

Do you see the way players are judged for entrance into the Hall of Fame evolving in the coming years and decades? Defense seems to just be getting to the point where we can judge a player's career. Will there be any cases that get pushed in due to statistical evidence supporting their exceptional defense?
(And no, I'm not just trying to find a way for Jose Molina to make it in the HOF.)(Steve from Milwaukee)

I think it's already changing; look at the way sabermetrics helped Bert Blyleven's climb. I don't think defensee alone is going to get anybody into Cooperstown unless they've got Ozzie Smith-level defensive numbers, which is tough luck for Omar Vizquel. (Jay Jaffe on the Hall of Fame)

That said, I can make better *arguments* for guys like Orel Hershiser, David Cone and Dwight Gooden, all of whom fell just short of 200 wins but had Cy Youngs and rings to their credit. I can make a better argument for Kevin Brown, but it's hindered by his being named in the Mitchell Report, not to mention his 2004 postseason shame. (Jay Jaffe)

Jay, Jack Morris isn't actually going to get elected to the Hall of Fame one of these years, is he? The Legend of the Guy Who Pitched to the Score is even more specious than the Legend of the Feared Hitter. The wave of great pitchers reaching eligibility in the next few years will be sufficient to hold off his charge, right? (David from CT)

Morris has been above 40 percent on three of the past four BBWAA ballots, and if you look at where Bert Blyleven was after a decade on the ballot, Black Jack is only 3.7 percent behind at 44.0 percent. That said, Byleven got a real push from the grassroots internet supporters, of which I'm a card-carrying member, and gained another 25+ percent. Morris doesn't seem likely to get that anytime soon. (Jay Jaffe)

Is Tom Brunansky the most underrated RF of the 1980s?(Jake from St. Louis, MO)

There’s a good idea for a mini-series. The all-under-rated team of the 1980s, which is when I came of age in baseball fandom. Tom Brunansky vs. Jesse Barfield. Bert Blyleven vs. Dave Steib. The Astros rainbow warrior jerseys vs. the Brown and Gold Padres things from the early 80s. Bruno probably gets the start in right. (Russell A. Carleton)

Jay, since I'll be under a pile of work when the HoF announcement is made, I've tried to come up with a question that will cover every conceivable issue raised by the results:
What does the (election/stagnant support/dropping off the ballot) of (Andre Dawson/Bert Blyleven/David Segui) say about the BBWAA's general attitude towards (impatient mustache aficionados/Dutch Old Masters/ill-considered bleach jobs)?
Does the dramatic falling off of the ballot of (Karros/Raines/McGwire) mean baseball will change the composition of the Veterans Committee in order to better represent (the undead/people with a basic understanding of baseball/chicks who dig the long ball)?
(Nick Stone from New York, NY)

Too funny! I definitely think that the disappearance of Segui from the ballot is a shot across the bow at those ill-considered bleach jobs, and that the road to the Hall just got considerably longer for Mike Piazza, Alex Rodriguez, and Bret Boone. The disappearance of Karros from the ballot means that the VC will be changed to better accommodate the undead. (Jay Jaffe)

Jay, thanks for the chat. Tyler Kepner in yesterday's NYT handicapped the HOF choices, in which he made reference to stat-based criteria, but he remains confoundingly lukewarm on Tim Raines (in my opinion, the highest impact player on the ballot), yet high on Fred McGriff. While I agree with you that McGriff is not an overwhelming candidate (please don't tell Bill James, who loved him), he has a case, but so does Raines, of an order of magnitude several notches greater than McGriff. And Kepner continues the patronizing commentary on Bert Blyleven. You can tell where my vote would go, but I cannot understand the lukewarm response to Raines. When will these guys learn? (BeplerP from New York, NY)

I don't know exactly how Kepner voted (or if he even has a ballot) but I think you're in danger of mistaking his opinion of those players' cases for his assessment of their chances in this year's voting, at least when it comes to Raines.

When will the voters learn? Some of them may never change their views on guys like Raines and Blyleven whom the statheads like us hold dear. The best we can hope for is that newer generations who come to the question with open minds can be swayed by the preponderance of evidence in their favor. (Jay Jaffe)

A softball to get you started: Who would be on your Hall of Fame ballot this year?(Bill from New Mexico)

Holdovers: Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven and Mark McGwire. For newbies, Barry Larkin and maybe Robbie Alomar, though I'm iffy enough on that one that I don't even remember if I'm for or against him at present. Just as a "I liked this guy, and I want to vote for him" kind of deal, and not because I think they should get in, I would toss a vote to Robin Ventura and Ellis Burks.

The good news is that Ray Lankford is finally on the ballot, so if he doesn't get 5% of the vote I can see if I can get him to write a foreword for "The Ray Lankford Wing of the Hall of Fame: Book Edition" without him feeling snubbed someday. (Marc Normandin)

Do you think the HOF has been watered down due to people wanting to pay such close attention to career counting stats?(JFerg from MD)

I think it can cut both ways. Those numbers are an excuse for the voters not to think. The numbers say yes or no, and you don't have to actually work out the player's actual quality for yourself. Hence a 300-winner is in, and Bert Blyleven isn't. (Steven Goldman)

Which team has gotten the most screwed over in the Hall of Fame vote? That is, which team has the most deserving guys who never made it? I think the list begins with the Cubs, who have two third basemen who are probably better than half of the guys currently enshrined at their position.(Josh from San Jose, IL)

I don't know if this is a team-by-team issue. The two most deserving men who are not in the Hall who should be are, in my opinion, Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven. One is a Cub, the other was many things. They might land themselves a HoFer who doesn't belong, too, in the person of Andre Dawson. Let's not forget that of Tinkers to Evers to Chance, only Chance has a truly legit case for inclusion. That probably balances the Santo slighting on the eternal Cubs ledger. (Jim Baker)

Despite what Joe Sheehan says, I am opposed to McGwire getting in. (Go Rock Raines and Bert Blyleven, though!)
Do you think a statistical argument could be made that McGwire should be excluded? Or is it purely a PED issue?
And do you think he will eventually get in?(SteveInPhilly from Philly)

As I pointed out this year, with the revised JAWS benchmarks, McGwire is now above on peak but below on career. That can be spun either way without sticking to anything but the numbers, and the direction of the spin is likely to be based on one's views about PEDs.

I think McGwire will get in, but only after at least 10 years on the ballot. He'll have to open up about his past, and the public and the media will have to calm down in order for that to happen. I do hope it does - it will be a great day when we can move past "cheater cheater pumpkineater" when it comes to the topic of steroids and the Hall of Fame. (Jay Jaffe)